Re: Convention for naming of packages

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:57:48 +0100, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:03:05 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>> 1. If you could meaningfully rename it afterwards, why would not you name
>> it properly at the original declaration point?
> The context is then not the same.
> 
> The most trivial example comes with Instance_Type. That's not the same  
> when it stands for the main type of a package and when it is used along  
> with many other types. Can be compared with generics in some way.

This is a good example of a bad name, which tells nothing about the thing.
Of course it is legitimate to use one bad name in place of other bad name.

> When something is named after its role, then the context matters, and the  
> name may change with the context.

No. The user's context cannot matter to the role, as it contradicts to all
principles of reuse, information hiding and good design. Even less the
declaration context is appropriate to influence the name.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de